~epublit of tbe .flbilippine~ ~upreme ~ourt229044 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff appelleev....

Sirs/Mesdames:

~epublit of tbe .flbilippine~ ~upreme ~ourt

;!fHanila

THIRD DIVISION

NOTICE

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution

dated November 9, 2020, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 229044 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelleev. LUIS BALDERAMA, JR. y TANGTANG, accused-appellant). - This Court resolves an appeal from the Court of Appeals Decision, 1

which affirmed the Regional Trial Court's conviction2 of Luis Balderama, Jr. y Tangtang (Balderama) for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, penalized under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

On May 7, 2010, Balderama was charged with the crime m an Information, which states:

That on 14th day of March 2010 at about 6:50 o'clock in the early evening at San Jose, Nabua, Camarines Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any legal purpose and authority, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell to a police officer who acted as a poseur buyer dried marijuana leaves with fruiting tops, a dangerous drug, placed in one heat sealed transparent plastic sachet now with marking ABR-1 weighing more or less 1.46 grams and another two pieces which were wrapped with paper also containing dried marijuana leaves with fruiting tops weighing more or less 1.57 grams and 4.29 grams respectively including the wrapper, now with markings ABR-2 and ABR-3, to the great damage of public interest and of that [sic] of the Republic of the Philippines.3

1 Rollo, pp. 2-13. The April 20, 2016 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Rodil Z. Zalameda (now a member of this Court) of the Eleventh Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

2 CA rollo, pp. 39-46. The February 25, 2015 Judgment was penned by Presiding Judge Manuel M. Rosales of the Regional Trial Court oflriga City, Branch 34. CA rollo, p. 39.

- over-(!-)

(248)

Resolution -2 -

I I

G.R. No. 229044 November 9, 2020

During arraignment, Balderama tpleaded not guilty to the crime charged.4 After preliminary conference ahd pre-trial, trial ensued.5

i .

I

The prosecution presented six (d) witnesses: (1) Police Officer 2 Arthur Robrigado (PO2 Robrigado); (2) Senior Police Officer 2 Cleo Sabas (SPO2 Sabas); (3) SPO2 Francis Fidel IAgnas (SPO2 Agnas); (4) Police Inspector Jun Malong (Inspector Malong); (5) PO3 Carolyn Cavite (PO3 Cavite ); and ( 6) Barangay Captain J llian Ocampo (Barangay Captain Ocampo).6

According to the prosecution, on March 14, 2010, officers of the Nabua Police Station surveilled an area· San Jose Nabua, Camarines Sur, acting on a report about some illegal saie of drugs. There, they observed that people would come in and out ofBal4erama's house.7 .

II

Based on this, SPO2 Agnas, one o~ the surveillingofficers, prepared a pre-operation report. 8 At once, the police planned a buy-bust operation, forming a team that included SPO2 Agnab, SPO2 Sabas, PO3 Manaog, PO2 Robrigado, two confidential assets, and I an agent of the Philippine Drug

I

Enforcement Agency. 9 \

I

PO2 Robrigado was assigned as tHe poseur-buyer, with SPO2 Sabas and SPO3 Agnas as his back-up. The ~uy-bust money consisted of three marked Pl00.00 bills and one marked P2· 0.00 bill, totaling P500.00. After the briefing, the officers went to the target area. 10

· . While the other team members sto d by, PO2 Robrigado and the two assets went to Balderama's house. Obe of the assets then called for Balderama. When Balderama stepped out, PO2 Robrigado told him that he would like to buy two packs of marijuana . .!, Balder~ma went insi~e his house, and when he came back out, gave PO2 Robngado a plastic sachet of suspected marijuana, along with two mo , e packs of marijuana wrapped in newspaper. 11

At· this, PO2 Robrigado identifi€d himself as a police officer, prompting Balderama to run back inside ~is house and escape through the backdoor. 12 Placing the. seized items in his right pocket, PO2 Robrigado

4 Id. at 40. 5 Id. 6 Id. at 40 and rollo, p. 3. Cavite's designation was sometimes "P02." 7 Rollo, p. 4. 8 Id. 9 CA rollo, p. 40. io Id. 11 Id. at 40-41. 12 Id. at 41.

- over-

Resolution - 3 - G.R. No. 229044 November 9, 2020

chased after Balderama and caught him with help from SPO2 Sabas and SPO3 Agnas, who had rushed to the area and blocked the man's way. 13

PO2 Robrigado then informed Balderama of his constitutional rights. Upon frisking, SPO2 Sabas found the marked money in Balderama's pocket. Meanwhile, PO2 Robrigado marked the three packs of marijuana "ABR-1," "ABR-2," and "ABR-3," and handed them to SPO2 Sabas, who inventoried the items in the presence of one Prosecutor Fajardo of the Department of Justice, Barangay Captain Ocampo, and media representative Glenda Bearis (Bearis ). SPO2 Hugo took photos and returned the seized items to PO2 Robrigado.14

The buy-bust team then brought Balderama to the police station. SPO2 Hugo prepared the requests for a drug test on Balderama and for a laboratory examination of the seized items. Then, PO2 Robrigado brought the items and the requests to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory in Naga City. There, PO3 Laut received the items and turned the1n over to forensic chemist Edsel Villalobos (Villalobos). 15

Upon examination, the specimens tested positive for marijuana. Villalobos then handed the seized items to the evidence custodian, PO3 Cavite, who stored them in the evidence cabinet. They were kept there until Inspector Malong presented them in court. 16

The defense presented the sole testimony of Balderama, who denied the charges against him and asserted that he was framed. 17

Balderama alleged that on the evening of March 14, 2010, he was having dinner with his family when Owen Villamer (Villamer) called for him and invited him to attend a birthday party. On their way, Villamer admitted that he was with someone, pointing to a man wearing a cap and a jacket standing by the roadside. Balderama would later learn that the man was PO2 Robrigado. When they approached the man, Villamer suddenly ran away. At once, PO2 Robrigado held Balderama's wrists, twisted his arm, and told him not to run. 18

When Balderama called for help, his wife came out of the house and asked why the man was twisting Balderama' s arm. Instead of answering, PO2 Robrigado shouted, "Positive!" At this, several police officers came rushing and pointing guns at Balderama. He asked why he was being

13 Rollo, p. 5 and CA rollo, p. 31. 14 CA rollo, p. 41. is Id. 16 Id. 11 Id. 18 Id. at 41-42.

- over-


I

I I I

arrested, but he was told to be quiet and wias led to a nipa hut near his house, where they tied his hands. 19 I

I

When one officer frisked him, Ballderama voluntarily turned out his pocket and gave the Pl20.00 inside it to the police. Soon, ~hen the media representative, the barangay captain, hnd the Department of Justice representative arrived, Balderama was m~de to sign a piece of paper, which he refused to do. The police then took the handkerchief tied on his arm, put it on the table with the money and newspaber, and inventoried the items. He was handcuffed and brought the police station, where he was jailed.20

I In a February 25, 2015 Judgment,f the Regional Trial Court found

Balderama guil~ beyond :easonable doublL of illegal sale of drugs. It found that the prosecut10n established all the ele1rents of the offense. It also found that Balderama's defense of frame-up was insufficient, failing to show ill motive on the part of the police officers, wijo were presumed to have regularly performed their duties.22 It disposed: i

1

I

WHEREORE, for all the foregoihg, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Luis Balderama Jr. y Taigtang guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5 Article II IDfRepublic Act 9165 and hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment antll to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhpS00[°00.00).

SO ORDERED.23 (Emphasis in, original)

Balderama appealed his conviction.I He raised doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti, claiming that the police officers failed to comply with Section 21 of the Comprehensive Danger~us Drugs· Act.24 H~ also argued that the buy-bust operation was an "instigftion" and not an ''entrapment."25

He maintained that PO2 Robrigado admit1fed to initiating the sale, and thus, it was he who induced him to commit the 9rime. 26

I

Balderama also pointed out how, pe~ PO2 Robrigado's testimony, the officer placed the seized drugs in his right bocket while chasing him.27 This, Balderama alleged, tainted the items' integrity, especially since the officer's short pants had six pockets.28 He also argued that the testimonies of P02 Robrigado and SPO2 Sabas conflicted as lo who held the seized items after

19 Id. at 42 and rollo, pp. 5-6. 20 Id. 21 Id. at 39-46. 22 Id. at 44-46. 23 Id. 24 Id. at 29. 25 Id. 26 Id. at 31. 21 Id. 28 Id. at 33.

- over-~ ..

(248)


the inventory, thus failing to identify who brought the seized items to the police station. 29

The prosecution, on the other hand, insisted that Balderama was rightfully convicted. It maintained that the police officers' positive and direct testiinonies were corroborated by the back-up officers, trumping Balderama' s self-serving defense of denial and alibi. It also claimed that the police officers were not shown to have ill motive, and the presumption of regularity in their duties remained intact. 30

The prosecution further insisted that it proved all the elements of the offense, the corpus delicti having been established.31 It argued that there was no break in the chain of custody-the seized items were, upon arrest, marked, inventoried, and photographed in the presence of Balderama and the required witnesses. 32

In an April 20, 2016 Decision,33 the Court of Appeals affirmed Balderama's conviction in toto, finding all the crime's elements present. It found that he was caught in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation. It also held that the prosecution had preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the apprehending officers strictly complied with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.34

The Court of Appeals further ruled that PO2 Robrigado's initial confusion as to who held the items while going to the police station did not detract from his credibility, especially since he testified two years after the arrest. In any case, it noted that the officer was later able to clarify that the ite1ns were returned to him after the inventory. 35

The Court of Appeals likewise found that PO2 Robrigado' s momentary placing of the seized items in his pocket was reasonable, given that he could not risk losing the corpus delicti and the culprit. It maintained that the integrity of the seized items was still preserved, finding no gap in the chain of custody.36

Thus, Balderama filed a Notice of Appeal.37 Later, in a March 8, 2017 Resolution,38 this Court noted receipt of the case records and ordered the

29 Id. at 33-34. 30 Id. at 70-71. 31 Id. at 74. 32 Id. at 78. 33 Rollo, p. 12. 34 Id.at9-10. 35 Id. at 10-11. 36 Id. at 11-12. 37 Id. at 14-16. 38 Id. at 19-20.

- over-


I I

parties to file their supplemental briefs.I Both accused-appellant ·and the Office of the Solicitor General, for I plaintiff-appellee People of the

I

Philippines, manifested that they would rnh longer do so. 39 I .

The sole issue in this case is wheler or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused~appellant Luis Balderama, Jr. y Tangtang violated Section 5 of Republic tct No. 9165. .

This Court affirms his conviction. ]The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elemen s of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and the requirements under Section f I of Republic Act No. 9165.

Balderama was charged with viola~ing Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, which states in part: ·

I I

SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, I Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential cAemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine rangihg from Five hundred thousand pesos (PS00,000.00) to Ten million Pfsos (Pl0,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away !o another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity a d purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. I

I

The elements of illegal sale of danJerous drugs are the following: "(1) proof that the transaction or sale took plabe and (2).the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as e~idence."40 This Court has held:

The commission of the offense of illegal \sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the. moment the buyer receives the drug fromthe seller. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went throug the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the angerous drugs delivered to the former; the crime is considered constated by the delivery of the goods.41 (Citation omitted)

Here, accused-appellant admitted I to the commission of the acts alleged when he argued that the buy-bust operation was an instigation and not an entrapment42 He likewise cla· ed that since P02 Robrigado

39 Id. 25 and 31. 40 People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010) [Per J. el Castillo, Second Division], citing People v.

Darisan, 597 Phil. 479,485 (2009) [Per J. Corona, Fir~ Division] and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

41 People v. Villarta, 731 SCRA 497, 509 (2014) [Per J. erez, Second Division]. 42 CA ro/lo, p. 29.

- over- ~" (248)


admitted to initiating the sale, it was the officer who induced him to commit the crime.43

This Court has long recognized that a buy-bust operation is a valid form of entrapment undertaken by police officers, with the goal of apprehending criminals who commit offenses • through clandestine operations:

[A] buy bust operation is a valid and legitimate form of entrapment of the drug pusher. In such operation, the poseur buyer transacts with the suspect by purchasing a quantity of the dangerous drug and: paying the price agreed upon, and in turn the drug pusher turns ov~r or delivers the dangerous drug subject of their agreement in exchange for the price or other consideration. Once the transaction is consummat~d, the drug pusher is arrested, and can be held to account under the criminal law. The justification that underlies the legitimacy of the buy-bu~t operation is that the suspect is arrested in jlagrante delicto, that is, th~ suspect has just committed, or is in the act of cmmnitting, or is attempting to commit the offense in the presence of the arresting police officer or private person. 44

(Citations omitted) ·

In People v. Doria, 45 this Court differentiated entrapment from instigation:

Accused-appellants were caught by the poli9e in a buy-bust operation. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers as an effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of an offense. Entrapment has received judicial sanction when undertaken with due regard to constitutional and lc;gal safeguards.

It is recognized that in every arrest, there is a pertain amount of entrapment used to outwit the persons violating or about\to violate the law. Not every deception is forbidden. The type of entrapment the law forbids is the inducing of another to violate the law, the ''seduction" of an otherwise innocent person into a criminal career; W:here the criminal intent originates in the mind of the entrapping person c;md the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in 9rder to prosecute him, there is entrapment and no conviction may be had .. Where, however, the criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused and the criminal offense is completed, the fact that a person acting as a decoy for the state, or public officials furnished the accused an opportunity for commission of the offense, or that the accused is aided in the commissfon of the, crime in order to secure the evidence necessary to prosecute him, there is no entrapment and the accused must be convicted. The law tolerates the use of decoys and other artifices to catch a criminal.

43 Id. at3 l. 44 People v. Andaya, 745 Phil. 237, 246 (2014) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division]. 45 361 Phil. 595 (1999) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].

- over-


Entrapment is recognized as a valid defense that can be raised by an accused and partakes of the nature of h confession and avoidance. It is a positive defense. Initially, an accus¢d has the burden of providing sufficient evidence that the governmerh induced him to commit the offense. Once established, the burden shlfts to the government to show otherwise. When entrapment is raised las a defense, American federal courts and a majority of state courts us~ the "subjective" or "origin of intent" test laid down in Sorrells v. Un~lted States to determine whether entrapment actually occurred. The focus of the inquiry is on the accused's predisposition to commit the offense charged, his state of mind and inclination before his initial exposure to government agents. All relevant facts such as the accused's mental and character traits, his past offenses, activities, his eagerness in committing tlie crime, his reputation, etc., are considered to assess his state of mind befJre the crime. The predisposition test.emphasizes the accused's propensity to commit the offense rather than the officer's misconduct and reflects an rittempt to draw a line between a "trap for the unwary innocent and the tra~ for the unwary criminal." If the accused was found to have been ready anU willing to commit the offense at

I

any favorable opportunity, the entrapment defense will fail even if a police agent used an unduly persuasive inducemlent. Some states, however, have adopted the "objective" test. This test wrs first authoritatively laid down in the case of Grossman v. State rendered IDY the Supreme Court of Alaska. Several other states have subsequentl)f adopted the test by judicial pronouncement or legislation. Here, the pourt considers the nature of the police activity involved and the propriet)j of police conduct. The inquiry is focused on the inducements used b)f government agents, on police conduct, not on the accused and his pre4isposition to commit the crime. For the goal of the defense is to deter unlawful police conduct. The test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the 1~law enforcement agent was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing, to commit the offense; for purpos s of this test, it is presumed that a law-abiding person would normally re ist the temptation to commit a crime that is presented by the simple opportunity to act unlawfully. Official conduct that merely offers such + opportunity is permissible, but overbearing conduct, such as badgering, cajoling or importuning, or appeals to sentiments such as pity, sy:tnpathy, friendship or pleas of desperate illn.ess, are not. Proponents of tl

1

his test believe that court. s must refuse to convict an entrapped accused not because his conduct falls outside the legal norm but rather becaNse, even if his guilt has been established, the methods employed on btalf of the government to bring about the crime "cannot be countenance ." To some extent, this reflects the notion that the courts should not be ome tainted by condoning law enforcement improprieties. Hence, the I transactions leading up to the offense, the interaction between the accrn~ed and law enforcement officer and the accused's response to the officer'~ inducem~nts, the gravity of the crime, and the difficulty of detecting instances of its commission are considered in judging what the effect of ! e officer's conduct would be on a normal person.

It was also in the same case of Pe iple v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng we first laid down the distinction betwee entrapment vis-a-vis instigation or inducement. Quoting 16 Corpus Juris, e held:

- over-


"ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION. - While it has been said that the practice of entrapping persons into crime for the purpose of instituting criminal prosecutions is to be deplored, and while instigation, as distinguished from mere entrapment, has often been condemned and has sometimes been held to prevent the act from being criminal or punishable, the general rule is that it is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely placed in his way, or that the criminal act was done at the 'decoy solicitation' of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting in its commission. Especially is this true in that class of cases where the offense is one of a kind habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. Mere deception by the detective will not shield defendant, if the offense was committed by him, free from the influence or instigation of the detective. The fact that an agent of an owner acts as a supposed confederate of a thief is no defense to the latter in a prosecution for larceny, provided the original design was formed independently of such agent; and where a person approached by the thief as his confederate notifies the owner or the public authorities, and, being authorized by them to do so, assists the thief in carrying out the plan, the larceny is nevertheless committed. It is generally held that it is no defense to a prosecution for an illegal sale of liquor that the purchase was made by a 'spotter,' detective, or hired infonner; but there are cases holding the contrary."

... Entrapment, we further held, is not contrary to public policy. It is instigation that is deemed contrary to public policy and illegal.

It can thus be seen that the concept of entrapment in the American jurisdiction is similar to instigation or inducement in Philippine jurisprudence. Entrapment in the Philippines is not a defense available to the accused. It is instigation that is a defense and is considered an absolutory cause. To detennine whether there is entrapment or instigation, our courts have mainly examined the conduct of the apprehending officers, not the predisposition of the accused to commit the crime. The "objective" test first applied in United States v. Phelps has been followed in a series of similar cases. Nevertheless, adopting the "objective" approach has not precluded us from likewise applying the "subjective" test. In People v. Boho/st, we applied both tests by examining the conduct of the police officers in a buy-bust operation and admitting evidence of the accused's membership with the notorious and dreaded Sigue-Sigue Sputnik Gang. We also considered accused's previous convictions of other crimes and held that his opprobrious past and membership with the dreaded gang strengthened the state's evidence against him. Conversely,

. the evidence that the accused did not sell or smoke marijuana and did not have any criminalrecord was likewise admitted in People v. Yutuc thereby sustaining his defense that led to his acquittal. ·

- over-

Resolution -10 - G.R. No. 229044 November 9, 2020

I I

The distinction between entrapm6nt and instigation has proven to be very material in anti-narcotics oper~tions. In recent years, it has become common practice for law enforcement officers and agents to engage in buy-bust operations and o~her entrapment procedures in apprehending drug offenders. Anti-narcotics laws, like anti-gambling laws are regulatory statutes. They are rules of E onvenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society, and their violation gives rise to crimes ma/a prohibita. They are [I t the traditional type of criminal law such as the law of murder, rape, theft arson, etc. that deal with crimes ma/a in se or those inherently wrongfi 1 and immoral. Laws defining crimes ma/a prohibita condemn behavio~ directed, not against particular individuals, but against public order. Vi9lation is deemed a wrong against society as a whole and is generally unatt9nded with any particular harm to a definite person. These offenses are cruiied on in secret and the violators resort to many devices and subterfuges to avoid detection. It is rare for

. any member of the public, no matter how~furiously he condemns acts mala prohibita, to be willing to assist in the enforcement of the law. It is necessary, therefore, that government in etecting and punishing violations of these laws, rely, not upon the volunt~ action of aggrieved individuals, but upon the diligence of its own officials. This means that the police must be present at the time the offen~es are committed either in an undercover capacity or through informant~, spies or stool pigeons.

I • • • • I

We therefore stress that the "objJtive" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start froci. the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offe~ to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the cbl nsummation of the sale by the . delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purcha~e the drug, the payment of ~e "bf y-bust" money, and ~e delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the mforr~ant alone or. the. pohce officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by fourts to insure that law:-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the s~e time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable deurts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If thrre is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain ariminal proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should looM at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit ~ offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of I the defense of inducement.46

(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

In this case, the prosecution wit9esses' testimonies show that the police officers conducted a valid entrapment through a buy-bust operation. The two confidential assets and P02 Rob¥gado went to accused-appellant's house.47 One of the assets called for him, and when he stepped out, P02 Robrigado asked to buy two packs of ma 1ijuana. Upon retrieving the items in his house, accused-appellant came bac to give the officer, in exchange

46 Id. at 608-621. 47 CA rollo, p. 40.

- over-~

(248)


for the marked money, a plastic sachet of marijuana and two more packs of marijuana wrapped in newspaper. 48

Accused-appellant could not have been instigated to commit the crime. PO2 Robrigado did not badger, cajole, force, or appeal to his sentiments to sell him the drugs. While it was PO 1 Robrigado who asked to purchase the marijuana, accused-appellant was ready and willing to sell it at any favorable opportunity. It is of no moment that it was POI Robrigado and not the confidential informant who asked for it.

As discussed, accused-appellant's claim of instigation is a clear admission that he committed the acts alleged. Thus, the sale of the drugs through the buy-bust operation was sufficiently proven. The prosecution established the first element of the offense.

Likewise, the prosecution proved the second element.

The second element requires the following: (1) the presentation of the corpus delicti, or the body or substance of the crime;49 (2) the establishment that the item sold to the poseur-buyer is one of the dangerous drugs prohibited under Republic Act No. 9165; and (3) proof that the item presented in court is the item seized from the accused. To comply with these requisites, Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act50

provides the procedure to be followed by the apprehending officers:

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors . and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

48 Id. at 40-41.

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

49 People v. De Leon, 624 Phil. 786, 796 (2010) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division]. 50 Republic Act No. 10640 has amended Republic Act No. 9165 on July 15, 2014. However, since the

incident occurred on March 14, 2010, the applicable law is still Republic Act No. 9165.

- over-


(2) Within twenty-four (24) ho~rs upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sourc~s of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential I chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia anWor laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to thelPDEA Forensic Laboratory fora qualitative and quantitative exbination;

(3) A certification of the forensil laboratory examination results, which shall be done under path by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued wit~n twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drJ1gs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursbrs and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of resting within the time frame, a partial laboratory examinati9n report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quaiil.tities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic! laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examinatipn on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours[.] (Emphasis in the original)

This set of requiremeuts forms the I hain of custody rule. Aside from ensuring the integrity of the seized items tj~ough marking, inventorying, and photographing in the presence of thej required neutral witnesses, the prosecution must also show who had cus ody of the seized items, how they were kept, and how each stage of the was linked together. The four links in the chain of custody were discussed in Pe 1,ple v. Nandi: 51

[F]irst, the seizure and marking, if I racticable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by fhe apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover oy the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for la*oratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 52 (Emphasi 1 in the original)

Compliance with the chain of cus ody rule establishes proof of the integrity of the seized item in each stage, from it seizure until its presentation in court. Conversely, noncompliance taints the integrity of the seized specimen. It amounts to a failur~ to prove the corpus delicti, the second element of the offense.53

In this case, the prosecution compl · ed with all the requirements under Section 21. ·

51 639 Phil. 134 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Divisio ]. 52 Id. at 144-145 citing People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, B 12 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]. 53 People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, T ird Division].

- over-~

(248)


Upon accused-appellant's arrest, P02 Robrigado informed him of his constitutional rights. Upon a body search, the marked money was found on him. P02 Robrigado immediately marked the three packs of marijuana as "ABR-1," "ABR-2," and "ABR-3." He then gave the items to SP02 Sabas, who inventoried the items. Prosecutor Fajardo, Barangay Captain Ocampo, and media representative Bearis acted as witnesses. SP02 Hugo took photos. After the inventory, the seized items were returned to P02 Robrigado. From the area of arrest, they then went to the police station.54

At the police station, SP02 Hugo prepared the requests for drug test and laboratory examination. P02 Robrigado brought these and the seized items to the Crime Laboratory, where P03 Laut received and turned them over to the forensic chemist, Villalobos, for laboratory examination. The specimen tested positive for marijuana. Afterward, Villalobos gave the seized items to the evidence custodian, P03 Cavite, who stored the items in the evidence cabinet. There, they were kept until Inspector Malong presented·them in court.55

Accused-appellant pointed to inconsistencies between the testimonies of P02 Robrigado and SP02 Sabas as to who took custody of the seized items after the inventory. He thus argues that they failed to identify who brought the seized items to the police station. 56

On the contrary, P02 Robrigado was able to clarify that it was he who took custody over the seized items after the inventory:

Q: You said you turned over the seized item to Police Officer Sabas for inventory, correct? A: Yes, ma' am.

Q: And the next time that you get hold of the item was when you retrieved that from the police station ofNabua for you to bring it to the PNP Crime Laboratory, am I right? A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: So, it was not you who was in custody of those items from the place of the alleged buy-bust until it was brought to the police station, am I right? A: No, ma 'am, because it was returned to me after it was inventoried at the place of the incident and then, immediately after we arrived at the police station, letter requests were made, and after it was signed by the signatories, we brought it to the Crime Laboratory Office.

Q: Mr. Witness, you also testified last January 31, 2012 and you were asked of the same question and your answer are not the same.

54 CA rollo, p. 41. 55 Id. 56 Id. at 33.

- over-

Resolution - 14 -

I

G.R. No. 229044 November 9; 2020

Let me remind you of your previbus answer, the question goes this · way "after the conduct of the inientory, what did you do with the

I -

specimen?", and you replied, '!I turned over it [sic] to Police Officer Sabas of PNP Nabua." 'J\hat is your answer. And another question was asked, "for what p14"Pose?" "They were the ones who have it received, by police Na ua [sic]." Can you remember saying that? A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: So, it is clear from your testiI ony then that it was not you who brought the items from the seen to the police station because, as you have said, it was Police Officer Sabas who was in custody of the said items, am I right? A: Yes, ma'am..

Q: So, I am correct when I aske · you earlier that it was not really you who is [sic] in custody of ~e items from the scene of the alleged buy-bust to the police sdtion, and you only got hold of it [sic] when you brought it [ si~] to the Crime Laboratory for examination, correct? 1 A: Yes, ma'am.57 (Emphasissujlied)

It is clear from this testimony thatl after SP02 Sabas had inventoried the items, he returned them to P02 Robrigado.58 There could be no other conclusion than that, when the police offi[· cers re-turned to the police station, the seized items were in P02 Robrigado' custody all along. It was also he who brought the seized items and the rel uests to the Crime Laboratory in Naga City. 59 SP02 Cleo Sabas confirme this in his testimony:

57 Id. at 33-34. 58 Id. at 41. 59 Id.

Q: And after having been hande of the plastic sachet, who took custody of that plastic sachet? I A: After the marking of the plastic sachet, Robregado [ sic] was the one who took possession of thb plastic sachet, your Honor.

Q: So, when you were preparing the inventory, the plastic sachet containing marijuana has already been pre-marked by Robregado, [sic] correct? A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: Then it was turned over to yo1J? A: No, your Honor. I

Q: It was retained by Robregado Jsic]? A: Yes, by him, your Honor." I

Q: You mean to say that from thf scene of the incident up to the PNP Headquarters, it was P02 Robregado who was in custody of the plastic sachet containing marijhana?

- over-~

(248)


A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: You were never in possession of that except when you made the inventory. A: Yes, your Honor.60

In People v. Appegu:61

Slight contradictions even serve to strengthen the credibility of the witnesses and prove that their testimonies are not rehearsed nor perjured. What is important is the fact that there is a sustained consistency in relating the principal elements of the crime and the positive and categorical identification of accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.

Neither are such inconsistencies and even improbabilities unusual, for there is no person with perfect faculties or senses. An adroit cross-examiner may trap a witness into making statements contradicting his testimony on direct examination. Intensive cross-examination on points not anticipated by a witness and his lawyer may make a witness blurt out statements which do not dovetail even with his own testimony. Yet, if it appears that the same witness has not willfully perverted the truth, as may be gleaned from the tenor of his testimony and the conclusion of the trial judge regarding his demeanor and behavior on the witness stand, his testimony on material points may be accepted.

The Court has recognized that even the most candid of witnesses commit mistakes and make confused and inconsistent statements. . . . Hence, there is more reason to accord them an ample space for inaccuracy. So long as the witnesses' testimonies agree on substantial matters, the inconsequential inconsistencies and contradictions dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the verity of their testimonies. When the inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is insignificant and can not have any bearing on the essential fact testified to, that is, the killing of the victim.62 (Citations omitted)

As to P02 Robrigado's momentary placing of the seized items in his right pocket,63 accused-appellant claims that this tainted the integrity and identity of the seized items. More reason for doubt, he says, was that P02 Robrigado wore short pants that had six pockets.64 Accused-appellant cites People v. Dela Cruz,65 where this Court held:

The circumstance of POI Bohon keeping narcotics in his. own pockets precisely underscores the importance of strictly complying with Section 21. His subsequent identification in open court of the items coming out of his own pockets is self-serving.

60 Id. at 35. 61 429 Phil. 467 (2002) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division]. 62 Id. at 477--478. 63 CA rollo, p. 31. 64 Id. at 33. 65 744 Phil. 816 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

- over-0:1

(248)

Resolution -16 - I G.R. No. 229044 j November 9, 2020 I I I I

The prosecution effectively adm~ts that from the moment of the supposed buy-bust operation until tlie seized items' turnover for examination, these items had been in the sole possession of a police officer. In fact, not only had they been irl his possession, they had been in such close proximity to him that they h1 d been nowhere else but in his own pockets.

Keeping one of the seized items i his right pocket and the rest in his left pocket is a doubtful and suspiciou way of ensuring the integrity of the items. Contrary to the Court of Appe ls' finding that POl Bohon took

I

. the necessary precautions, we find his actions reckless, if not dubious.

Even without referring to the s· lict requirements of Section 21, common sense dictates that a single polJe officer's act of bodily-keeping the item(s) which is at the crux ofl offenses penalized under the Comprehensive Dangerous Dmgs Act of 2002, is fraught with dangers. One need not engage in a meticulqus counter-checking with the requirements of Section 21 to view wi~_idistrust the items coming out of POI Bobon's pockets. That the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both failed to see through this an~ fell - hook, line, and sinker -for POI Bobon's avowals is mind-boggling.

Moreover, POI Bohon did so wi hout even offering the slightest justification for dispensing with the requi ements of Section 21. 66

In Dela Cruz, custody over the sei ed item was kept in the officer's pocket for the entire duration of the arrest and seizure. That is not the case

I

here. In this case, P02 Robrigado only briefly placed the items in his pocket when he chased accused-appellant. When he was apprehended,· P02 Robrigado and the rest of the team marked,\ inventoried, and photographed the seized items in the presence of the requirecll witnesses.

Moreover, in Dela Cruz, the prosecmtion failed to comply with several other requirements of Section 21. Neithir an inventory nor photos of the seized items were taken. None of the req!ired witnesses were present. The

I

seized items were kept in the police officer's pockets from seizure until examin_atio? .. The officer even separat~~ the sei~ed ~terns-he kept .o?e sachet m his nght pocket and the other SI:?( sachets m his left pocket. This, on top of the rest, was what caused th* Court's concern, for it was "a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring tlie integrity of the items."67

I

Again, that is not the case here.

In this case, the prosecution was able to show that the arresting officers complied with Section 21 of Re I ublic Act No. 9165 and that the chain of custody remained unbroken. It ~stablished the corpus delicti, the second element of the crime. 1

66 Id. at 834-835. 67 Id.

- over-~

(248)


Accused-appellant's claim that he was framed is not persuasive. To begin with, he presented no other witness to corroborate his self-serving allegations. In any case, this Court disfavors defenses of denial and frame-up because "such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs."68 In People v. Bongalon:69

As we have earlier stated, the appellant's denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. We are not unaware of the perception that, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians. However, like alibi, frame-up is a defense that has been viewed by the Court with disfavor as it can easily be concocted, hence, commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. We realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the policemen's alleged rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. 70

(Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)

To consider this defense, there must first be "clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty"; otherwise, "their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit."71

In this case, all the elements of the offense were established beyond reasonabl~ doubt. This Court, therefore, affirms accused-appellant's conviction.

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' April 20, 2016 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07498 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Luis Balderama, Jr. y Tangtang is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

68 People v. Gonzaga, 647 Phil. 65, 85 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division]. 69 425 Phil. 96 (2002) [Per Curiam, En Banc]. 70 Id. at 120. 71 People v. Tian, 623 Phil 209,229 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr. First Division], citing People v. Domingcil,

464 Phil. 342, 357 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division].

- over-~

(248)

Resolution

SO ORDERED."

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL 134 Amorsolo Street Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City

COURT OF APPEALS CA G.R. CR HC No. 07498 1000 Manila

Atty. Michael Joseph D. Cruz Special & Appealed Cases Service PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DOJ Agencies Building East Avenue cor. NIA Road Diliman, 1104 Quezon City

The Presiding Judge REGIONAL TRIAL COURT Branch 34, 4431 Iriga City (Crim. Case No. IR-9173)

Mr. Luis Balderama, Jr. y Tangtang c/o The Director General BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS 1770 Muntinlupa City

The Superintendent New Bilibid Prison BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS 1 770 Muntinlupa City

The Director General BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS 1770 Muntinlupa City

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE Supreme Court, Manila [For uploading pursuant to AM. 12-7-1-SC]

LIBRARY SERVICES Supreme Court, Manila

Judgment Division JUDICIAL RECORDS OFFICE Supreme Court, Manila I

G.R. No. 229044

[joy

-18 - G.R. No. 229044 November 9, 2020

y authority of the Court:

\'A.; ~~e,~t\ MISAE DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III

Division Clerk of Court GcR. 1/!,l3.1

(248) URES

u ,.',

~epublit of tbe .flbilippine~ ~upreme ~ourt229044 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff appelleev....

Documents

Transcript of ~epublit of tbe .flbilippine~ ~upreme ~ourt229044 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff appelleev....